This entry is our analysis of a study added to the Effectiveness Bank. The original study was not published by Findings; click Title to order a copy. Free reprints may be available from the authors – click prepared e-mail. Links to other documents. Hover over for notes. Click to highlight passage referred to. Unfold extra text The Summary conveys the findings and views expressed in the study. Below is a commentary from Drug and Alcohol Findings.

Amundsen E.J., Ravndal E.Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy: 2010, 17(1), p. 42–54.Unable to obtain a copy by clicking title? Try asking the author for a reprint by adapting this prepared e-mail or by writing to Dr Amundsen at eja@sirus.no.

Intriguing suggestion from a Norwegian study that taking measures to effectively reduce bullying in
schools (including improving the social climate and setting clear and consistently enforced boundaries)
also curbs the development of forms of substance use most associated with disturbed child development.

Summary The possibility that effectively tackling bullying among young people might reduce substance use is
suggested by the fact that both are linked to conduct disorders or antisocial behaviour. Norwegian
pupils aged 10–16 who score high on psychological tests of antisocial attitudes have also been
found to be significantly more likely to smoke and drink, suggesting a common root in the rejection or
breaking of social norms.

The opportunity to assess impacts on substance use arose because in year 2001 Oslo primary/junior
schools embarked on the Olweus programme and some also engaged in a study of pupils' substances use.
The latter study surveyed pupils from age 12–13 in grade 7 up to age 15–16 in grade 10.
Except for transfers between schools, over four years pupils in the lowest grade were re-assessed each
year until grade 10. Pupils in higher grades at the start of the study were also followed up to grade 10
but over fewer years or, in the case of those in grade 10 at the start of the study, assessed only
once.

Main findings

There were large variations in the proportions of pupils who had used substances between schools, and
in the steepness of the increases in substance use from grade 7 to grade 10. Where there were
differences in trends in substance use between Olweus and non-Olweus schools, mainly these emerged
between grades 9 and 10 when pupils were aged 14 to 16.

Two sets of analyses tested the statistical significance of these trend differences in terms of the
likelihood that each individual pupil would use substances in the ways assessed by the study. Of the 18
tests, six met the conventional criterion of being expected by chance less than 1 in 20 times,
suggesting that there were real differences between the schools which in turn caused substance use
trends to differ – the presumption being that the key difference was the Olweus programme.
Significant trend differences took the form of less steep age-related increases in Olweus schools in the
proportions of pupils who said they had frequently got drunk or used cannabis over the past year.

The evidence was particularly compelling in relation to frequent drunkenness; the gap between the two
sets of schools was virtually zero in relation to trends in having been drunk in the past year,
substantial in terms of having been drunk at least six times, and greater still in terms of having been
drunk at least 11 times. In other words, the more worrying the drinking pattern, the more the Olweus
programme appeared to have retarded its development. For example, by grade 10 just over 30% of
non-Olweus pupils had got drunk at least six times in the past year compared to just over 20% in Olweus
schools.

Another two sets of analyses compared the schools in terms of trends in the proportions of pupils in
each grade who had engaged in the substance use behaviours assessed by the study. When grades of pupils
had been tracked across years, these analyses could treat each succeeding yearly survey as repeatedly
re-assessing the same pupils. On this basis, none of the 18 tests for trend differences between Olweus
and non-Olweus schools were statistically significant. Nevertheless, some of the trend differences were
substantial, resulting in gaps by grade 10 of 6–9%.

The authors' conclusions

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program did not reduce alcohol use as such, but may have reduced
frequent drunkenness, cannabis use, and possibly current/daily smoking. If we assume that the programme
had its intended effects (not actually assessed by the study), it suggests that development of forms of
substance use associated with poor social development may be held back by persisting measures to create
a school environment characterised by positive interest and engagement on the part of adults, firm
boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and consequent application of non-physical,
non-hostile sanctions.

The findings may not be due to lower levels of bullying only but to a better social climate in
general. This speculation is in line with findings in Norway that young people who experience supportive
peer relationships are more likely to drink than those who do not; in the study, drinking as such was
unaffected, only frequently getting drunk.

These findings are however tentative. Apart from not assessing whether the social climate actually
was better in Olweus schools, with so few schools it was not feasible to randomly allocate them to the
Olweus programme, leaving the possibility that the schools and/or their pupils differed in other ways
which affected the development of substance use.

commentary It will be a welcome finding that in (as they are legally required to do) taking measures to prevent
and deal with bullying, British schools may also be preventing the most worrying forms of substance use.
For the reasons given by the authors – and also because of 36 tests for differences in substance
use between the schools, just six were statistically significant – these findings are suggestive
only and require confirmation in a more appropriately designed study. But as the authors point out, they
'make sense' in that such differences as there were largely concerned the type of substance use
– frequently getting drunk – which at these ages seems likely to be indicative of disturbed
social and psychological development. Forms of substance use like drinking as such which (in the
Norwegian context) carry no such connotation were unaffected. Adding to the credibility of the finding
is an association found in a US study between substance use among secondary
school pupils and being either a bully or (more strongly) a victim of bullying.

Assuming that the findings reflected real differences attributable to the Olweus programme, they add
to a body of work which
has found substantial preventive impacts from school and parenting initiatives which are not about
substance use at all, but about creating environments at home and in school which foster psychologically
and socially healthy child development. This approach is consistent with the observation that
typically children develop a constellation of mutually aggravating problems, related the further back
one looks to a shared set of factors affecting children's mental and physical well-being. Among
these is a positive school environment. Findings analyses of such studies can be accessed by running this search.

At the same time drug education in
schools has generally failed to live up to hopes that it can substantially and reliably prevent
substance use problems. Recent disappointments include two programmes which embodied the latest thinking
on drug education – the seven-nation EU-Dap European
drug education trial and the English Blueprint trial. The
former's results were patchy, the latter's, if anything, in the wrong direction.

Non-drug focused programmes attract, not just because they may offer a substance use prevention
effect not realised by drug-focused programmes, but also because they promise wide-ranging benefits in
areas other than substance use such as the prevention of crime and violence and of mental health
problems. Beyond specific programmes is the finding that
substance use and problems are lower in schools distinguished by the high degree to which they
productively engage pupils in their education and/or create a sense of being part of a valued school
community – a sense promoted by warm and supportive schools with a caring, inclusive ethos, which
emphasise prosocial values, encourage cooperation, show concern for pupils as individuals, allow pupils
to participate in decision-making, and offer extracurricular activities.

These too are the type of schools where bullying is prevented and effectively dealt with when it
happens. British schools have a legal duty to put in place measures to encourage good behaviour and
prevent bullying among pupils. Guidance to
schools from the Department for Education points out that schools "which excel at tackling bullying
have created an ethos of good behaviour where pupils treat one another and the school staff with respect
because they know that this is the right way to behave. Values of respect for staff and other pupils, an
understanding of the value of education, and a clear understanding of how our actions affect others
permeate the whole school environment and are reinforced by staff and older pupils who set a good
example to the rest."